Town Square

City Council wants to increase Pleasanton's size without permission from the voters

Original post made
by Concerned, Another Pleasanton neighborhood,
on Jun 18, 2013

On tonight's agenda, the Pleasanton City Council plans to expand Pleasanton's size in order to increase the size of Pleasanton by approving a plan to develop lands north of Stanley Boulevard outside the Urban Growth Boundary.

In 1996, voters approved a permanent Urban Growth Boundary that was an initiative placed on the ballot by the City Council that protects areas outside the urban growth boundary from development. Measure FF indicated only a vote of the people can expand the urban growth boundary.

Looks like the City Council is once again ignoring the will of the people and will again attempt to circumvent a ballot measure adopted by Pleasanton voters.

Posted by franco
a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Jun 18, 2013 at 9:16 pmfranco is a registered user.

Concerned has some kind of an agenda and is using a carefully worded posting to convey a lie..... the Council agenda is NOT what is written above, but reads "Update and discussion of four working draft Specific Plan alternatives for the East Pleasanton Specific Plan area....." Also, the last sentence above is simply an assertion designed to paint black hats on council - consider instead that the plan is still being drafted and far away yet from any council vote.

By the way, if one consults a map of the EPSP area and the present urban growth boundary one would find that most of the land outside the UGB is now and will continue to be existing lakes with only a minor portion along Stanley Blvd. across from Shadow Cliffs that could be developable. But it may not ever be developed because much of it has unconsolidated soils. So, it seems that it is this little portion that Concerned wants to get all of you excited about.

Posted by Concerned
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 18, 2013 at 10:57 pm

Franco, perhaps you are employed by Legacy Pleasanton Land LLC. Here is Legacy Partners' website Web Link and from the map, they sure do want to develop a whole lot more than that little itsy bit tiny piece of land that you refer to as a minor portion along Stanley Blvd. Too bad it will require a vote of the people to move that Urban Growth Boundary!

Legacy Pleasanton Land LLC is a foreign limited liability company with headquarters in Foster City and it
wants to develop between Lake H, Lake I and Cope Lake, south of Lake I, west of Cope Lake Web Link

Posted by My own eyes
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 19, 2013 at 12:18 am

Thank you, franco. I watched it all on TV, but reading the first line by resident/author 'concerned' all I could think was 'personal agenda' since it was all carefully twisted, distorted intentionally to mislead. SICK.

Posted by Manifest Destiny
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 19, 2013 at 8:15 am

Too many members of this council are fighting to grow Pleasanton, even if it means ignoring the Citizen's vote before they were put on the council.

They think, "you elected me, now get out of my way." WRONG!

I have lived in Pleasanton for 40 years, and we need to watch this group closely. I voted for Measure FF to control the size of the town, and they better not touch that growth boundary, or I will start a recall with their name on top!

Posted by franco
a resident of Vineyard Hills
on Jun 19, 2013 at 9:00 amfranco is a registered user.

Surely you joke, Concerned. Your "whole lot more" comment is keeping in form - to mislead.

" between Lake H, Lake I and Cope Lake" - This is a tiny triangular sliver of land that appears to be good for a beach on Cope Lake!

"south of Lake I" - ahem, happens to be inside the UGB!

"west of Cope Lake" - This piece looks like at best it could be the south beach for Cope Lake. This is a fill area "subject to large deformations".

"north of Shadow Cliffs next to Stanley Boulevard" - this is the only piece that has any real significance of size outside the UGB and as I posted earlier suffers from "underconsolidated soils" over much of its area. Its area in total, looking at a map, appears to be about the size of the Shadow Cliffs lake, for those who are familiar but don't have a map to look at.

What I don't get in these posts is the logic. If any development outside the UGB requires a popular vote, what is the great fear and indignation being expressed here? Why attack council who are simply doing their job in developing an East Pleasanton Specific Plan? Why paint everybody with "black hats"?

Posted by Gary Schwaegerle
a resident of Downtown
on Jun 19, 2013 at 9:46 amGary Schwaegerle is a registered user.

Did anyone plan for a Commuter Rail Station with Parking along Stanley to give a break to the Fairgrounds Altamont Commuter Rail Station (which is moving the parking to the other side of the Fairgrounds during the Fair). When we build the Sport Parks at Bernal perhaps we could combine parking for the Park & The Commuter Rail

Posted by Dennis Loco
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 20, 2013 at 11:06 am

Anything north of Stanley Boulevard on the south side of town should be developed. That part that is not developed would have to currently be an unsightly weed patch. "Concerned" must be drinking the same loco Kool-Aid as Becky Dennis.

Posted by My own eyes
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 20, 2013 at 11:57 pm

Manifest D, the state of CA is requring the number of multi-family units...NOT THE COUNCIL
However, I do think it is a crime that the whole state quota is being dumped on the East side, rather than thruout the city. I will help protest the injustice in that.

Posted by Spin Spin Spin
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 21, 2013 at 7:53 pm

Some think if you say something over and over it becomes true. The council discussed a range of options, NONE of which increased the land mass of Pleasanton. It was exploration only of what had to be done IF the city goes in that direction. That is what the task force is for, to explore the options! The presentation was an update and the council asked questions and gave individual opinions.

Posted by Dear Spinner
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 24, 2013 at 12:21 pm

Why talk about an option if it is not viable and waste time?

Does the ESSP task force understand the UGB and the 1996 vote to ban expansion of the city? I doubt anyone from the land owners or the City explained that one. This council is just waiting for an opportunity to grow Pleasanton.

Posted by To Franco
a resident of Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Jun 25, 2013 at 5:22 pm

I personally do not trust that this council will not try to slither under the UGB by using tinkering to define a word to fit their needs. Some definitions change month to month depending on who the local supporters are that week.

Is a recreation lake urban? A park? An industrial park? A school? And more? Trust you ask? Sorry, I have lost faith.

Don't miss out on the discussion!Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online.
Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information
and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name:*

Select your neighborhood or school community:*

Comment:*

Verification code:* Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.